COSA comment:Head and neck cancer nutrition guidelines/Nutrition screening and assessment/How should nutritional status be assessed/How should nutritional status be assessed?

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki
  • Statements regarding the inclusion/exclusion of issues should be clearly supported by scientific evidence, and specifically outline the relevance of the suggested material to the guidelines.
  • If you have identified any gaps or errors in the content please suggest suitable text for inclusion.
  • Attach any supporting references or newly published evidence to be considered by the author group for inclusion to your comment.


How to post a public comment

  1. Create a user account and/or log in with your details
  2. To post a comment, click the blue 'Make a new comment' link below
  3. Fill in the empty boxes
    Warning: You need to fill out the subject line and box!
  4. Attach supporting references and any new papers to go with your comment and to be considered by the author group for inclusion by clicking on "Attach academic evidence".
  5. Press 'save page' to post your comment!


In order to leave a comment, you must be logged into a Cancer Council Australia account.
Log in to your account Create your account




Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Public comments - How should nutritional status be assessed214:34, 6 November 2012

Public comments - How should nutritional status be assessed

Post comments below


Rhonda Cousins11:32, 11 April 2011

Use a validated nutrition assessment tool (e.g. scored Patient Generated–Subjective Global Assessment or Subjective Global Assessment) to assess nutritional status.

In this recent review by MUELLER C et al JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr January 11, 2011 vol. 35 no. 1 16-24 Evidence Grade E was cited.

http://pen.sagepub.com/content/35/1/16.full#T4

DAVID LIBERALI Clinical Nutrition Support Dietitian

Clinical Nutrition & Food Services

The Queen Elizabeth Hospital

ADELAIDE ,SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

Ext 27073 Pager 47812

203.26.122.1215:04, 14 April 2011

Thank you for highlighting this reference. The authors have reviewed the article and conclude the following: 1) the methodology of grading the evidence (levels and grades) is different to the NHMRC methodology used here, 2) some of the key references in this area were missing from this article, 3) they have used criteria related to intervention and perhaps not diagnostic accuracy for screening, 4) the grade E recommendation in this paper is in relation to whether nutritional status should be assessed when identified at risk, rather than the recommendation here which is in regards to which tool should be used to assess nutritional status.

Therefore no changes have been made to the recommendations here.

Teresa Brown, on behalf of the authors

121.222.120.12810:42, 17 June 2011